The Responsible Contract Resolution Act – better known as binding arbitration – will be debated in committee at the State House today. At this hearing, and in the local media before and after it, you will hear many of the Rhode Island’s most vocal union busters complain that the bill is tantamount to letting labor sign its own checks.

Nonsense.

Connecticut has binding arbitration for teachers and none of the doomsday scenarios that conservative pundits claim binding arbitration will bring have played out there. (Note that chattering class here typically only compares Rhode Island to our neighbors when it benefits right-wing talking points, but Sam Howard has a great piece on this local tradition today!)

Connecticut has had binding arbitration for teachers since 1979 and in 1986 the state expanded the program to include all state workers (municipal workers were already covered). This is a clear cut sign that the state thought the system worked.

In fact, 26 states have binding arbitration for public sector workers. And Rhode Island is one of them! We even have binding arbitration for teachers, just not on financial matters.

Binding arbitration is just a dispute resolotuion tool that protects vital social services from being interrupted because of financial disagreements. Rhode Island, per its laws, believes public safety is worth this protection but not public education. This bill would elevate education to a similar standard as police and fire, show teachers that the state supports their efforts and, yes, it would also likely cost local taxpayers a little bit more.

But that isn’t necessarily bad for the economy and you can certainly make a strong argument that it is good for education. We should have the debate about finances, for sure, but we should have the other debate too.

Connecticut’s Democratic Governor Dan Malloy has the following line in a press release discussing education reform and binding arbitration in Connecticut:

“They also support proposals to immediately overhaul the state’s lowest-performing schools, and to re-write the state binding arbitration law so that students learning needs become a primary factor in contract negotiations.”

Based on the above passage, it would appear that CT’s binding arbitration law has not led to the best interests of students being met.

What the taxpayers need to know about binding arbitration is that it’s not a zero sum game. It’s not about whether you get an increase in pay and/or benefits, it’s about how much. That’s why it’s being pushed by labor. It’s guaranteed increase for labor.